Video Game Aesthetics, the fifth chapter of Understanding Video Games, seeks to offer an understanding of the major features of video games, in order to better examine them critically. To this end, the authors define video game aesthetics as all aspects of a game experienced by the player. To further delineate, three categories are offered: rules (which determine what the player may or may not do, as well as win/loss/scoring scenarios); geography and representation (the world of the game and the effects of the game world on player actions); and the number of players. An important concept for these categories is that no one of them stands alone; they all interact with one another to create a whole experience.
In discussing these elements, the category of ‘rules’ is the first, as the authors feel that a game is its rules; that is, that rules are a game’s defining characteristic. Further, they argue that rules are transmedial (not tied to one material or another), and illustrate this idea with the notion of Star Wars Chess or real-person chess. The scale and visual representation in both examples changes dramatically, but as the rules remain the same, so too does the game itself. However, the authors contend, while rules define the game, it is context which defines the experience of the game.
Having established the importance of rules in their discussion of video game aesthetics, the authors proceed to offer their definition of this concept: imperatives governing the interaction of game objects and the possible outcome of this interaction. The authors feel that while rules are, indeed, restrictions, it is these restrictions which shape the experience of play and challenge the player to succeed in the face of these limitations.
With these concepts established, the authors then refer to a number of academics for a cross-section of different rule-type theories:
- Gonzalo Frasca – Ludus rules (relating to win/loss conditions); paida rules (referring to game procedures
- Jesper Juul – Game state rules (basic aspects of the game state at any given time); outcome valorization rules (defines positive versus negative outcomes); information rules (determines information relayed to the player about the game state during play)
- Katie Salen and Eric Zimmerman – Operational rules (governs processes and victory conditions); constitutive rules (the underlying formal structures which define basic dynamics); implicit rules (unwritten rules which are taken for granted)
At this point, the authors contend that Salen and Zimmerman’s rule types become less applicable as games become more complex. To this end, the authors use the example of Halo: Combat Evolved, arguing that it is not easy or meaningful to describe Halo based on constitutive rules. As in earlier chapters, the authors make a claim like this without offering further explanation for their thought process, making the argument fall apart. In Halo, enemy behavior patterns, weapon power/accuracy, and interactive environmental structure are all based on underlying structures rather than operational rules, thus the authors’ contention makes little sense with their example. The authors do offer their own rule types, as well: interplay rules (determines relationships and properties of the elements in a game) and evaluation rules (decides which occurrences are rewarded versus which are punished). From this set of rule types, the following definition of gameplay is then arrived at: game dynamics emerging from interplay of rules and game geography.
This definition leads into a discussion of the next major element of video game aesthetics: geography and representation. The authors highlight the difference between geography and representation by pointing out that geography is the interactive space of the game world, whereas representation adds to the experience of the game world without having a bearing on player interactions and possibilities. The authors then make a plea for academics not to ignore graphics and graphical style choices as mere ‘window dressing’. They feel, as I do, that graphics capabilities and properties may influence gameplay styles, as well as making new styles possible (see the transition from 2D to 3D, as will be discussed later).
Further to this argument, the authors point out that geography, representation, and gameplay are interrelated. As evidence, Space War is put under the microscope. There are a limited number of objects on-screen, and the screen could not scroll, but that did not necessitate the wraparound space of the playing field; the view is third-person, as opposed to first-person, giving a different, broader perspective of the playing field; the game takes place on a plane, with X and Y axes, but no Z axis, fundamentally shaping the way in which the game is played based on the space in which it is played; there is a single screen shared by two players, so screen scroll would not be possible, as it would give one player an unfair advantage over the other. At this point, the authors point out that these design choices mirror the visual aesthetics of a board game, shaping the experience at its roots.
In order to discuss geography and, more to the point, representation, a breakdown of possible perspectives used to display the game world is necessary, and the authors do not disappoint. Their offerings are as follows:
- First-person – The game world and action are seen from the point of view of the game’s protagonist/avatar (the authors do not make this distinction, but the player-avatar and the narrative’s protagonist are not automatically one and the same. See: Dungeon Keeper; Overlord).
- Third-person – the player is able to view the object/objects under her/his control, such as an avatar character, strategy game units, city assets, etc.
- Isometric third-person – an ostensibly 2D view, but designed to convey a feeling of 3D space via a ¾ overhead perspective.
- Top-down third-person – a ‘Bird’s-Eye’ view of the area and characters
After providing these categories, the authors argue for the interchangeability of the first- and third-person views, but suggest that game genres tend to adhere to one or very few perspectives: real-time (RTS) and turn-based strategy games are always third-person, as are action games (the authors point to the difficulty inherent in controlling Lara Croft via first-person), shooters are always first-person, and so on.
This idea of genres being tied to perspective is a huge assumption, which is also incorrect. Within thirty seconds, I was able to come up with examples which countered this idea: the 1998 Battlezone reboot is an RTS controlled from a first-person perspective; Mirror’s Edge is similarly first-person, and successfully offers all of the acrobatics of Tomb Raider; the Gears of War series is a highly successful third-person shooter.
Moving on from perspective, the next major discussion to be had regarding representation is of 2D versus 3D graphics. Simply put, 2D graphics take place on a plane with X and Y axes, but no Z axis, as mentioned earlier, while 3D graphics have said Z axis. This Z axis addition transforms the graphics from images on a plane to objects in space. 3D effects, however, are attainable in 2D in several ways (the aforementioned isometric view; scaling bitmaps such as the Mode 7 effects of the Super Nintendo), therefore, the authors feel it is better to categorize 3D games as those which allow movement along perceived X, Y, and Z axes.
Three approaches to game space are then offered:
- Unconnected levels – when a level is finished, the player-avatar is immediately placed at the start of the next level (e.g. Donkey Kong; Pac-Man)
- Zone-based Multi-Screen space – the player-avatar exits from one side of the screen and perspective jumps to show the avatar on the other side of the screen in a new environment, suggesting that the view has panned rather than that the avatar has teleported (e.g. Legend of Zelda; Metal Gear)
- Seamless Multi-Screen space – screen scrolling gradually reveals the game space as the player-avatar moves
The authors assert that these distinctions are important because they delineate between what is immediately perceivable by the player and what must be projected and planned for.
Following from on-screen space, two different types of off-screen space are discussed: passive, where nothing is happening off-screen until the space appears on-screen, and active, where what happens beyond the frame of the screen affects the course of the game. The most extreme version of active on-screen space is that of the MMORPG (massively-multiplayer role-playing game), as any one player is experiencing only a tiny fraction of total game activity at any given time, and the game continues its actions during any individual player’s absence. By this token, two forms of game exploration are laid out: forced (constraints are placed on the player, such as forced screen scroll, a stage timer, etc.) and unforced (the player is allowed to explore the game space at her/his leisure. The idea of unforced exploration is a potentially sticky one, however, as even “unforced” and “open-world” games, such as Super Metroid and the Grand Theft Auto series restrict full access to the game world until certain gameplay requirements are fulfilled.
One aspect of video game aesthetics the authors feel is woefully under-examined, especially given its importance in the study of other media (literature; film), is time. Game time is experienced by the player and is subject to design choices in order to shape the experience of the game. On this note, the authors use Jesper Juul’s two categories of video game time: play time (the “real” time spent engaged in actual play), and event time (the time which passes in the game world during the course of the game). They do acknowledge that the division only works when the distinction is clear. For example, there is no event time in abstract puzzle games, such as Tetris, but entire generations of event time in certain RPGs, such as Dragon Quest V or Phantasy Star III. Further, different play actions may represent different event times (e.g. action games occur in real-time; strategy games may pass months or years within minutes of game actions), thus dictating how the game is to be played.
The final discussion in relation to visuals is graphical style. For this discussion, the authors use Aki Jarvinen’s three classifications:
- Photorealism – attempts to represent reality as closely as possible. Sub-categories are televisualism (mimics the aesthetics of watching a television broadcast) and illusionism (photo-realistic graphics in service of non-realistic content).
- Caricaturism – present the essence of a person or object by exaggerating its/her/his most prominent features, attempting resemblance to a cartoon.
- Abstractionism – does not try to represent people or real-life objects, but is instead about pure form.
To wrap up the discussion about representation, game sound is the final topic in the category. The authors see two major problems with attempts to discuss sound systematically: sound has received relatively little attention in audiovisual media studies; and generally speaking, people are not taught how to articulate the qualities of sound. In order to deal with these inadequacies, four categories for understanding game sound are put forth:
- Vocalization – voices of characters, including voiceover and off-screen elements.
- Sound effects – sounds made by in-game objects.
- Ambient effects – sounds which add to the atmosphere of the game world without impacting gameplay.
- Music – the soundtrack of the game, which may be atmospheric and/or also directly diagetic.
One of the most interesting claims the authors make in regard to video game sound design is that it is not strictly realist, but instead needs to offer the feeling of realism. The problem is that, outside of looking at the purely technological aspect (randomized sounds versus a sound loop), they do not explore the implications inherent in the idea.
The authors conclude by saying that video games are an anomaly in the wider sphere of games and play, as the majority of them only require one player. The problem with this idea is twofold. First, if one considers puzzles games, then there is a large contingent of single-player traditional games: jigsaw puzzles; crossword puzzles; Sudoku; anagrams; etc. Secondly, the authors do not consider the idea of the developers who created the game with which the single player is engaged as a form of opposing player.
No comments:
Post a Comment